Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases

From: PFC <lists(at)peufeu(dot)com>
To: "A(dot)M(dot)" <agentm(at)themactionfaction(dot)com>, "pgsql-general general" <pgsql-general(at)postgresql(dot)org>
Subject: Re: [pgsql-general] In memory tables/databases
Date: 2007-07-05 22:53:16
Message-ID: op.tu0ki2zccigqcu@apollo13
Views: Whole Thread | Raw Message | Download mbox | Resend email
Thread:
Lists: pgsql-general


> Why not have a table type that writes no WAL and is truncated whenever
> postgres starts? Such a table could then be put in a ramdisk tablespace
> and there would be no transaction atomicity repercussions. Is there
> something I'm missing?

Is this not in the TODO (if not already scheduled for next version ?)
Check ALTER TABLE SET PERSISTENCE ...

In response to

Browse pgsql-general by date

  From Date Subject
Next Message John DeSoi 2007-07-05 23:46:34 Re: Nested Transactions in PL/pgSQL
Previous Message Martijn van Oosterhout 2007-07-05 21:34:23 Re: simple query question to use with DBI selectall_hashref